7-14-21
July 1st, 2011 at 9:25:23 PM
permalink
I saw this game at the Palms today when I was there for a haircut. It was getting pretty good play, but everybody was betting $5 or $10 per hand. Also bear in mind this was Friday afternoon of the July 4th weekend, and the casino was already quite crowded.
Rules
House Way
Bonus Bet
This analysis will be of medium difficulty. Here is how I would do it:
Such random simulations are rather tedious to program and not very challenging. I don't plan on bothering until I see the game get more placements.
I give the game credit for a fairly novel idea, yet still sticking to the scoring concept of blackjack. It is pretty easy to catch onto and while it feels like a strategy game, most hands should be obvious how to play.
Here are scans of the rule card. Click on image for larger version.
Rules
- Single 52-card deck used.
- All cards scored as in blackjack.
- Player makes three equal bets, plus optional bonus bet.
- Player and dealer each get six cards.
- Player arranges his cards into three 2-cards hands, titled 7, 14, and 21.
- The object of each hand is to get as close to the indicated number of points without going over.
- After the players have set their hands the dealer will set his according to the house way.
- The player's 21 hand is compared to the dealer's 21 hand. The one closer to 21 wins.
- The player's 14 hand is compared to the dealer's 14 hand. The one closer to 14, without going over, wins. If both go over, then the dealer wins.
- The player's 7 hand is compared to the dealer's 7 hand. The one closer to 7, without going over wins. If both go over, then the dealer wins.
- The 14 and 7 hands are scored in the same manner as the 21 hand.
- Wins pay even money, and ties push.
- In the event the player makes a "perfect hand," which is exactly 7, 14, and 21 points, he is automatically paid 4 to 1 on all three wagers.
House Way
- Dealer first makes the best 21 hand possible.
- Dealer then makes the best 14 hand possible. If there is more than one way to make 14 points the dealer will chose the way with the fewest aces.
Bonus Bet
- Suited perfect hand pays 2000 to 1
- Colored perfect hand pays 100 to 1
- All cards same suit pays 50 to 1
- Perfect hand pays 16 to 1
- Beat the dealer on all three hands pays 7 to 1
- Win any two hands pays 1 to 1
This analysis will be of medium difficulty. Here is how I would do it:
- By random simulation, determine how often the dealer gets each total for each hand.
- Put results of first simulation in an three arrays, one for each hand.
- Do another simulation of both player and dealer hands.
- Determine the expected win of all 90 ways to play each player hand, given the results of the first simulation. Make play with highest expected value.
- Score hand. Repeat.
Such random simulations are rather tedious to program and not very challenging. I don't plan on bothering until I see the game get more placements.
I give the game credit for a fairly novel idea, yet still sticking to the scoring concept of blackjack. It is pretty easy to catch onto and while it feels like a strategy game, most hands should be obvious how to play.
Here are scans of the rule card. Click on image for larger version.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
July 1st, 2011 at 10:19:03 PM
permalink
Quote: Wizard... The player's 21 hand is compared to the dealer's 21 hand. The one closer to 21, without going over wins. If both go over, the dealer wins.
So I don't understand how a two-card hand can possibly go over 21 (assuming a "soft 22" is automatically a 12).
July 1st, 2011 at 10:46:13 PM
permalink
removed
silly
silly
I Heart Vi Hart
July 1st, 2011 at 11:13:08 PM
permalink
Quote: mustangsallySo I played, and was not too happy. It seems to be a hard game to have any win streaks.
I figure the problem is the 7 hand. That's where you bust more often.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
July 2nd, 2011 at 12:08:09 AM
permalink
I played it a bunch a while ago online. Seems like a game where you bleed down slowly. Often I remember winning 1 or two hands.
July 2nd, 2011 at 4:25:57 AM
permalink
Quote: crazyiamI played it a bunch a while ago online. Seems like a game where you bleed down slowly. Often I remember winning 1 or two hands.
I concur.
July 2nd, 2011 at 8:13:47 AM
permalink
Quote: DocSo I don't understand how a two-card hand can possibly go over 21 (assuming a "soft 22" is automatically a 12).
It can't. I reworded the rules, but that rule applies to the 7 and 14 card hands only.
This game may have the lowest standard deviation I've ever seen in a casino game. Most of the time the player will win or lose 1/3 of his total bet, not counting the bonus bet.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
July 2nd, 2011 at 8:22:30 AM
permalink
I got sick of playing this one on the computer rather quickly. It's okay to kill time with, but I wouldn't want to bet money on it.
July 2nd, 2011 at 12:21:12 PM
permalink
I sort of liked it. I played the game for about an hour at max bets and was only down about 5% after that time. I did hit one perfect hand which won me over 500 credits that helped matters. It seemed like a lot of hands I'd win one, push one, and lose one, for a next loss of 5 credits (betting 25 credits on each with a 5 credit bonus bet).
I think the trick is to try and set your 7 hand first, then your 21 hand, saving your 14 hand for last. it seemed easier to get close to 14 even with bad hands.
I think the trick is to try and set your 7 hand first, then your 21 hand, saving your 14 hand for last. it seemed easier to get close to 14 even with bad hands.
"Bite my Glorious Golden Ass!" - Bender Bending Rodriguez
July 11th, 2011 at 1:57:43 AM
permalink
i like how it said he was at the casino "today" and thEN REMINDED US THAT IT WAS THE FORTH OF JULY WEEKEND. AND HE TYPED THIS IN OCTOBER! ZD
July 11th, 2011 at 8:02:21 AM
permalink
And I suppose you typed this in... APRIL? You are messed up dude. Go crawl back under your rock please.Quote: ponyboyi like how it said he was at the casino "today" and thEN REMINDED US THAT IT WAS THE FORTH OF JULY WEEKEND. AND HE TYPED THIS IN OCTOBER! ZD
Happiness is underrated
July 11th, 2011 at 8:21:33 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardHouse Way
- Dealer first makes the best 21 hand possible.
- Dealer then makes the best 14 hand possible. If there is more than one way to make 14 points the dealer will chose the way with the fewest aces.
I give the game credit for a fairly novel idea, yet still sticking to the scoring concept of blackjack. It is pretty easy to catch onto and while it feels like a strategy game, most hands should be obvious how to play.
I've logged several hours of play. It's kinda fun, even though most hands have an obvious play with no decision. Kinda like Pai Gow. And, kinda like Pai Gow, many hands push, or win/lose less than the total bet.
I've been working on a player strategy. Basically, I take the opposite approach than the house way. I.E. Try to get 7 and 14 hands.
So far I have: If you can make a perfect 7 and 14, even at the expense of a crappy 21, do it.
If a 21 means the 7 and 14 will both be busts, but you can make a 20 and have hands for the 7 and/or 14, go for the 20. For example, Q K J A 6 4 will give you either 16 14 21 or 7 14 20. Go for the latter.
In my play, I never bet the bonus.
Although I always saw a shrinking bankroll, it shrank slowly. Yeah, I'd try this in a casino.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
July 11th, 2011 at 8:49:03 AM
permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBearSo far I have: If you can make a perfect 7 and 14, even at the expense of a crappy 21, do it.
I agree. I've played a bit, and obviously the thing to do is make as many exact ahnds (ie 7 for the 7 hand, 14 for the 14 hand) as possible. Next best is to come close.
the problem, as I see it, is that it's hard to get a 7. most often I think I can make a good 21 and 14 rather than a 7.
Oh, and when playing for fun online I usually play all the sucker bets. Why not? It's fun and costs nothing. And it helps get the itch out of my system. Nothing like watching your virtual bankroll shrink quickly to realize how bad such bets are :)
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
August 14th, 2011 at 7:21:26 AM
permalink
I've been playing it a lot and have confirmed that, often, you practically have to ignore the 21 hand.
Take the following example:
Admin note: removed image www.djteddybear.com/images/7-14-21_a.png
Conventional wisdom (or house way) would have set the hands as A-9 (10-bust), 4-9 (13), A-10 (21). I realized that by having 2 aces, it lowered the chance of the dealer having an ace, so if I set the 21 as A-10, it probably would win rather than push. But what would that leave me for the 7 and 14?
I figured that the total bet would push at best, so I went with the non-traditional hand settings - hoping to win the 7 and 14 hand to get a small profit.
Here's the way it panned out:
Admin note: removed image www.djteddybear.com/images/7-14-21_b.png
Had I used conventional wisdom, it would have been a bust, push, win, for a net push. Instead, I got lucky!
I'm looking forward to trying this game in a casino. At the very least, it's a slow grind.
Take the following example:
Admin note: removed image www.djteddybear.com/images/7-14-21_a.png
Conventional wisdom (or house way) would have set the hands as A-9 (10-bust), 4-9 (13), A-10 (21). I realized that by having 2 aces, it lowered the chance of the dealer having an ace, so if I set the 21 as A-10, it probably would win rather than push. But what would that leave me for the 7 and 14?
I figured that the total bet would push at best, so I went with the non-traditional hand settings - hoping to win the 7 and 14 hand to get a small profit.
Here's the way it panned out:
Admin note: removed image www.djteddybear.com/images/7-14-21_b.png
Had I used conventional wisdom, it would have been a bust, push, win, for a net push. Instead, I got lucky!
I'm looking forward to trying this game in a casino. At the very least, it's a slow grind.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
August 14th, 2011 at 7:30:30 AM
permalink
I'm attempting to analyze the game. I'm off on Monday and Tuesday, so I should be done by then.
Man Babes #AxelFabulous
August 17th, 2011 at 2:46:59 AM
permalink
Ok, Hopefully there were no typos and/or brainos in my program. According to this post in the other thread the "base game is a 98% game", so I cant be too off.
Updated 8/18/11 10:30am: Found an error in my program. Edited chart. Player EV of -0.005401715 total for 3 bets, -0.0162051454 per bet.
I have a list of the best way to play each of the 4915 unique hands. I'll look through them to see if there is a easy way to learn the basic strategy. In DJ's sample hand of 2 Ace's, 2 Nine's, a Ten, and a Four, it is best to play Ace , Ten for the 21 hand( 21), the 2 Nines in the 14 hand (bust), and Ace , Four in the 7 hand (5).
Updated 8/18/11 10:30am: Found an error in my program. Edited chart. Player EV of -0.005401715 total for 3 bets, -0.0162051454 per bet.
| Pays | Combinations | Probability | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12 | 1,326,041,832,192 | 0.006953747 | 0.0834449655 |
| 3 | 4,343,353,003,852 | 0.02277649 | 0.0683294699 |
| 2 | 7,255,434,780,062 | 0.038047411 | 0.0760948223 |
| 1 | 56,536,403,801,064 | 0.296476209 | 0.2964762092 |
| 0 | 48,991,449,154,518 | 0.256910559 | 0.0000000000 |
| -1 | 47,528,109,832,434 | 0.249236826 | -0.2492368259 |
| -2 | 18,589,380,830,082 | 0.097482485 | -0.1949649708 |
| -3 | 6,124,398,713,676 | 0.032116272 | -0.0963488156 |
| total | 190,694,571,947,880 | 1 | -0.0162051454 |
I have a list of the best way to play each of the 4915 unique hands. I'll look through them to see if there is a easy way to learn the basic strategy. In DJ's sample hand of 2 Ace's, 2 Nine's, a Ten, and a Four, it is best to play Ace , Ten for the 21 hand( 21), the 2 Nines in the 14 hand (bust), and Ace , Four in the 7 hand (5).
Man Babes #AxelFabulous
August 17th, 2011 at 5:27:05 AM
permalink
DJ- house ways is NOT meant to be the best for the dealer. It is designed to keep the house advantage LOWER than it would be if the house used optimal strategy. Like in blackjack, the fact that if the player busts before the dealer he loses, the house edge is huge. It is only brought down to a few percentage points because of the intentionally poor house ways.
August 17th, 2011 at 7:37:23 AM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOODJ- house ways is NOT meant to be the best for the dealer. It is designed to keep the house advantage LOWER than it would be if the house used optimal strategy. Like in blackjack, the fact that if the player busts before the dealer he loses, the house edge is huge. It is only brought down to a few percentage points because of the intentionally poor house ways.
Ah, fascinating technique to lower the house edge. Out of curiosity o you happen to know of any other games that have used this non optimal house way technique to reduce a large HE?
Alfie
August 17th, 2011 at 7:40:29 AM
permalink
Quote: miplet-0.01939499
Good work! Even without the mysterious 2% post, 1.93% sounds about right for where an experienced game maker would set the house edge for a game like this.
I look forward to the strategy.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
August 17th, 2011 at 8:00:49 AM
permalink
Miplet, if you haven't already, try looking at the hands by some kind of power ranking. I used to think it was best to focus on the 14 and 7 hands, but clearly there are trade offs to make. I'm pretty sure only 21 or 20 is worth playing in the top, but I wonder what types of hands you can play in the lower ones (vs. junking them)
Wisdom is the quality that keeps you out of situations where you would otherwise need it
August 17th, 2011 at 8:16:39 AM
permalink
I have to admit I was unsure about strategy.
It seemed imperative to avoid busting, which was a loss no matter what; however, it was hard to be sure about that.
It seemed imperative to avoid busting, which was a loss no matter what; however, it was hard to be sure about that.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell! She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
August 17th, 2011 at 9:26:21 AM
permalink
What do you think of this strategy?
Here is an example where rule 5 comes into play: 2,3,4,5,J,Q,K. You could play 2,5 or 3,4 in the low. You should play 2,5, so that you can play 4,K in the medium.
This will probably be wrong in some hands with an ace. For example, this would call for playing A3-79-QQ, when I have a feeling that 79-3Q-AQ would be better.
Just thinking out loud here.
- Maximize low hand, without going over 7. If you can't come back to it later.
- Maximize medium hand, without going over 14. If you can't come back to it later.
- Maximize high hand.
- Put anything in hands you have to come back to.
- If there are multiple ways to achieve the same total in the low hand, do the one that results in the highest medium hand.
Here is an example where rule 5 comes into play: 2,3,4,5,J,Q,K. You could play 2,5 or 3,4 in the low. You should play 2,5, so that you can play 4,K in the medium.
This will probably be wrong in some hands with an ace. For example, this would call for playing A3-79-QQ, when I have a feeling that 79-3Q-AQ would be better.
Just thinking out loud here.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
August 17th, 2011 at 10:18:48 AM
permalink
I agree. For this situation, you need another rule:Quote: WizardThis will probably be wrong in some hands with an ace. For example, this would call for playing A3-79-QQ, when I have a feeling that 79-3Q-AQ would be better.
6. If you can't set a low and medium where neither busts, maximize the high first.
On the other hand, if that 7 was a 5, I'd set it as A3, 59, QQ.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
August 17th, 2011 at 10:20:33 AM
permalink
This seems to support what I've been saying about Pai Gow: That the Wouse Way is designed not to win more, but to lose less.Quote: SOOPOODJ- house ways is NOT meant to be the best for the dealer. It is designed to keep the house advantage LOWER than it would be if the house used optimal strategy. Like in blackjack, the fact that if the player busts before the dealer he loses, the house edge is huge. It is only brought down to a few percentage points because of the intentionally poor house ways.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
August 17th, 2011 at 10:28:26 AM
permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBearIf you can't set a low and medium where neither busts, maximize the high first.
Here is the strategy on the rack card. At first I thought the rule about busting as little as possible was obvious, but apparently not.
Quote: Rack card strategyYou should always try to arrange the cards in the best combination resulting in no busted hands. This this isnot possible then you should attempt to make the best (7) hands first, then attempt to make the best (14) hand. The last two cards form your (21) hand.
In other news, I've been in contact with the game inventor just ten minutes ago. He says miplet's 1.93% house edge is too high. More details to follow.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
August 17th, 2011 at 10:46:04 AM
permalink
Regarding the making best 7 first, if you had 8532, wouldn't you take 32(5) +85(13) over 52(7) + 83(11)? It just seems that 11 in the (14) hand is very vulnerable, while simply not busting would make up a significant part of the equity in the (7) hand.
August 17th, 2011 at 3:34:17 PM
permalink
Quote: ponyboyi like how it said he was at the casino "today" and thEN REMINDED US THAT IT WAS THE FORTH OF JULY WEEKEND. AND HE TYPED THIS IN OCTOBER! ZD
This thread started in July 2011. Today is August 17th, 2011. October is not between July and August. What the hell are you talking about?
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
August 17th, 2011 at 8:50:11 PM
permalink
I would not play this game, though I do have one point of commentary. They way that you are 'paid' is very reminiscent of a gimmick used in multi-line slot play. You seem to 'win' a more often than not on these machines. Of course, you might win 10 or 20 credits on one line while spending 50 or 100 across the entire spin. But the length of the 'ding ding ding' isn't relational to the amount won. It just screams out "You won!" without making it clear that you won less than you spent to play.
There's an element of this same play dynamic that I find present in this game. There are lots of pretty combinations of cards, but you can really only make a subset of them work at any given time (for most hands). The value of any given combination (21, 14 or 7, by example) is diluted against the sheer number of combinations you're forced to play at one time.
The Asia Poker variant of Pai Gow (splitting your cards into 4/2/1 card hands instead of 5/2) had this exact same problem. You could never *win* with the bank winning all copies. In this case, it's busted hands. Same thing, in my opinion.
I simply have no interest in playing a game where I, by definition, am required to throw away a significant portion of each hand to 'save' the others.
There's an element of this same play dynamic that I find present in this game. There are lots of pretty combinations of cards, but you can really only make a subset of them work at any given time (for most hands). The value of any given combination (21, 14 or 7, by example) is diluted against the sheer number of combinations you're forced to play at one time.
The Asia Poker variant of Pai Gow (splitting your cards into 4/2/1 card hands instead of 5/2) had this exact same problem. You could never *win* with the bank winning all copies. In this case, it's busted hands. Same thing, in my opinion.
I simply have no interest in playing a game where I, by definition, am required to throw away a significant portion of each hand to 'save' the others.
August 18th, 2011 at 12:45:15 AM
permalink
No guarantee on my math, but the numbers look right. I just did a simulation and calculated the odds of each of the dealer hands. Then looked at each possible player hand to figure out the odds of winning that particular hand.
High Hand
Mid Hand
Low Hand
First it it wasn't obvious the return is the amount of money expected from the hand. This includes pushes. So wins are counted double and pushes are counted once. My intention was not to figure out how much I could win playing the game, it was simply to figure out if playing an 8 and 20 was better than a 13 and 15. I did not include any of the perfect hand wins. There is zero reason not to play that hand if you have it, so it doesn't change how you would play.
I tried coming up with a combo that would make it so you didn't actually want to place a low hand. The only close situations were when an ace could be used. Best case is the ace is worth 165%, which is still lower than the lowest low hand value. So for the moment I'll assume if you can make a low hand, do so.
I'm not sure if this makes sense to anyone else, but the only way I could find a reasonable pattern was to add up all the values of the cards remaining. There may be a better way of figuring this out. Obviously if your cards total 34, you may not have all options available to you.
Some basic rules
1) A high 21 + any mid is better than not using the 21.
2) A high 20 + any mid is better than not using the 20 unless you have a 14.
Under 30 - Just make the best mid hand. The high hands value is so low it really doesn't matter.
Around 32 it starts to shift so that you want to make the best high hand.
Over 35 - Just make the best high hand, as your mid hand is gauranteed to bust.
So in the case of the value 34 you would have T,A,9,4 You are better off with 94 TA rather than T4 A9.
Hopefully my math was close. All the numbers at least look decent.
High Hand
| Hand Value | Return |
|---|---|
| 14 | 1.71% |
| 15 | 3.29% |
| 16 | 6.23% |
| 17 | 11.64% |
| 18 | 20.96% |
| 19 | 36.25% |
| 20 | 88.29% |
| 21 | 165.40% |
Mid Hand
| Hand Value | Return |
|---|---|
| 4 | 27.18% |
| 5 | 27.36% |
| 6 | 29.94% |
| 7 | 33.81% |
| 8 | 41.77% |
| 9 | 50.86% |
| 10 | 63.82% |
| 11 | 78.13% |
| 12 | 98.88% |
| 13 | 126.73% |
| 14 | 160.38% |
Low Hand
| Hand Value | Return |
|---|---|
| 3 | 180.52% |
| 4 | 180.77% |
| 5 | 181.49% |
| 6 | 184.82% |
| 7 | 190.25% |
First it it wasn't obvious the return is the amount of money expected from the hand. This includes pushes. So wins are counted double and pushes are counted once. My intention was not to figure out how much I could win playing the game, it was simply to figure out if playing an 8 and 20 was better than a 13 and 15. I did not include any of the perfect hand wins. There is zero reason not to play that hand if you have it, so it doesn't change how you would play.
I tried coming up with a combo that would make it so you didn't actually want to place a low hand. The only close situations were when an ace could be used. Best case is the ace is worth 165%, which is still lower than the lowest low hand value. So for the moment I'll assume if you can make a low hand, do so.
I'm not sure if this makes sense to anyone else, but the only way I could find a reasonable pattern was to add up all the values of the cards remaining. There may be a better way of figuring this out. Obviously if your cards total 34, you may not have all options available to you.
| Mid Hand | High Hand | Return |
|---|---|---|
| 14 | 14 | 162.080% |
| 13 | 15 | 130.020% |
| 12 | 16 | 105.110% |
| 11 | 17 | 89.770% |
| 10 | 18 | 84.780% |
| 9 | 19 | 87.110% |
| 8 | 20 | 130.060% |
| 7 | 21 | 199.210% |
| 14 | 15 | 163.660% |
| 13 | 16 | 132.960% |
| 12 | 17 | 110.520% |
| 11 | 18 | 99.090% |
| 10 | 19 | 100.070% |
| 9 | 20 | 139.150% |
| 8 | 21 | 207.170% |
| 14 | 16 | 166.600% |
| 13 | 17 | 138.370% |
| 12 | 18 | 119.840% |
| 11 | 19 | 114.380% |
| 10 | 20 | 152.110% |
| 9 | 21 | 216.260% |
| 14 | 17 | 172.010% |
| 13 | 18 | 147.690% |
| 12 | 19 | 135.130% |
| 11 | 20 | 166.420% |
| 10 | 21 | 229.220% |
| 14 | 18 | 181.330% |
| 13 | 19 | 162.980% |
| 12 | 20 | 187.170% |
| 11 | 21 | 243.530% |
| 14 | 19 | 196.620% |
| 13 | 20 | 215.020% |
| 12 | 21 | 264.280% |
| 14 | 20 | 248.660% |
| 13 | 21 | 292.130% |
Some basic rules
1) A high 21 + any mid is better than not using the 21.
2) A high 20 + any mid is better than not using the 20 unless you have a 14.
Under 30 - Just make the best mid hand. The high hands value is so low it really doesn't matter.
Around 32 it starts to shift so that you want to make the best high hand.
Over 35 - Just make the best high hand, as your mid hand is gauranteed to bust.
So in the case of the value 34 you would have T,A,9,4 You are better off with 94 TA rather than T4 A9.
Hopefully my math was close. All the numbers at least look decent.
August 18th, 2011 at 2:29:46 AM
permalink
Quote: soulhunt79
Some basic rules
1) A high 21 + any mid is better than not using the 21.
I wonder if you are taking into account the house way. The dealer has to start with making the best high hand, making his lower hands vulnerable. So it would be better to wreck the 21 if you are left with 7 and 14 . And playing 6 plus ace for the 7, even if this is leaving no ace for a 21.
As far as I can tell the Wizard is on the money with his strategy above.
edit: With the Wiz strategy, it seems if you are left with 2 hands that are lame, but not busted, it pays to strengthen one even to the point of busting the other.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell! She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
August 18th, 2011 at 5:35:02 AM
permalink
I think that's just a function of the way it was designed for the web demo.Quote: PerpetualNewbieI do have one point of commentary. They way that you are 'paid' is very reminiscent of a gimmick used in multi-line slot play. You seem to 'win' a more often than not on these machines.
Yes, a 2 unit "win" is actually 1 win with 2 losses for a net 1 unit loss.
As I understand it, it's a table game. Therefore, the bets would be placed in three spots (plus another spot for the optional bonus bet). Afterwards, each bet is individually taken, pushed or paid.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
August 18th, 2011 at 7:19:36 AM
permalink
I know. But this behavior didn't happen on it's own. It was a conscious decision to reinforce the YOU WIN component of the results while sweeping under the rug the fact that you didn't win as much as you lost/spent to play the game.
It's just not as cool to always* watch them take two main-game bets and pay one out or win/lose/draw for an overall push.
I agree that, for the amount I bet (coin-in), I lost very little. But I don't see how I could possibly win at this game. I'm always* aspiring to save one hand at the expense of another, with the overall net result being made up in the 3rd hand. It breaks the entire purpose of gambling: You pay for variance with house edge. I can't ever* reliably get a positive variance, so why do I want to play this?
* Not always or ever but a large % of the time.
It's just not as cool to always* watch them take two main-game bets and pay one out or win/lose/draw for an overall push.
I agree that, for the amount I bet (coin-in), I lost very little. But I don't see how I could possibly win at this game. I'm always* aspiring to save one hand at the expense of another, with the overall net result being made up in the 3rd hand. It breaks the entire purpose of gambling: You pay for variance with house edge. I can't ever* reliably get a positive variance, so why do I want to play this?
* Not always or ever but a large % of the time.
August 18th, 2011 at 8:12:55 AM
permalink
Quote: PerpetualNewbie... But I don't see how I could possibly win at this game.
... so why do I want to play this?
Well, hell. In that case, why does anybody ever step in a casino?
Because they have an unbeatable system?
Because they want to see if the stars have aligned in their favor?
Because of something else?
It's certainly not because the game is designed to let the player win.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
August 18th, 2011 at 8:50:34 AM
permalink
It's the difference between:
"I will win sometimes, lose others. In the long run, I know I'm going to lose a little more than I win." and...
"I will lose every time, but just a little bit."
Both of these have the same (qualitative) EV. Which of these games do you want to play?
They suggest to the player to play bottom up (7, then 14, then 21). But the dealer plays top-down (21, then 14, then 7). Think about it.
In hands where the player can play both a viable 7/14 hand that doesn't bust, they're playing whatever's left (= weaker hands) on the 21.. And the first thing the dealer does is play 19/20/21 in the 21 hand. Save for exceptionally good cards, you've more or less thrown away the 21-hand. The 7 on the dealer is likely to bust, and the game is won/lost/drawn on the 14.
In hands where the player is playing top down, they've typically already busted the 7 hand, by virtue of not having cards to play in it, and potentially the 14 hand, too. So you, by rule, have lost one hand, might have a chance at the other two - at least you're playing by the same algorithm and the results are driven by the actual cards in play.
The standard deviation *is* low on this game. My point is that it's so low that positive variance almost never happens. Try net-winning (win/win/lose or win/push/push) 3 hands in a row - and I'll let you include overall pushes (win/lose/push or push/push/push) as non-events. It will take you a long time to do it. I played for about 45 minutes and the most I saw was 2 net-positive hands in a row. That happened one time for me. Yes, anecdotes are like a**holes, I know.
Anyway, I'll hush up about this now. I'm not trying to be the party pooper. Just expressing an opinion.
"I will win sometimes, lose others. In the long run, I know I'm going to lose a little more than I win." and...
"I will lose every time, but just a little bit."
Both of these have the same (qualitative) EV. Which of these games do you want to play?
They suggest to the player to play bottom up (7, then 14, then 21). But the dealer plays top-down (21, then 14, then 7). Think about it.
In hands where the player can play both a viable 7/14 hand that doesn't bust, they're playing whatever's left (= weaker hands) on the 21.. And the first thing the dealer does is play 19/20/21 in the 21 hand. Save for exceptionally good cards, you've more or less thrown away the 21-hand. The 7 on the dealer is likely to bust, and the game is won/lost/drawn on the 14.
In hands where the player is playing top down, they've typically already busted the 7 hand, by virtue of not having cards to play in it, and potentially the 14 hand, too. So you, by rule, have lost one hand, might have a chance at the other two - at least you're playing by the same algorithm and the results are driven by the actual cards in play.
The standard deviation *is* low on this game. My point is that it's so low that positive variance almost never happens. Try net-winning (win/win/lose or win/push/push) 3 hands in a row - and I'll let you include overall pushes (win/lose/push or push/push/push) as non-events. It will take you a long time to do it. I played for about 45 minutes and the most I saw was 2 net-positive hands in a row. That happened one time for me. Yes, anecdotes are like a**holes, I know.
Anyway, I'll hush up about this now. I'm not trying to be the party pooper. Just expressing an opinion.
August 18th, 2011 at 10:10:48 AM
permalink
I've been working on a write up of this including some figures given to me from the game maker. Everything in my page is based on optimal strategy, which nobody has ever put in writing.
New 7-14-21 page.
As always, I welcome comments and corrections before I announce the page.
New 7-14-21 page.
As always, I welcome comments and corrections before I announce the page.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
August 18th, 2011 at 10:34:49 AM
permalink
A couple nits.
With optimal strategy the house edge is only 0.54%. Moved the word 'only' before the edge.
You might add what the Bonus Bet is all about. I had to enlarge the rule card to read what the details of the bet were.
With optimal strategy the house edge is only 0.54%. Moved the word 'only' before the edge.
You might add what the Bonus Bet is all about. I had to enlarge the rule card to read what the details of the bet were.
August 18th, 2011 at 10:45:44 AM
permalink
Quote: AlanA couple nits.
With optimal strategy the house edge is only 0.54%. Moved the word 'only' before the edge.
You might add what the Bonus Bet is all about. I had to enlarge the rule card to read what the details of the bet were.
Thanks. My proofreader says to put the word "only" as late in the sentence as possible. He will ding me on that every time.
The Bonus Bet pay table is the first table in the page.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
August 18th, 2011 at 10:57:43 AM
permalink
Okay on the 'only'..sounds weird to me. ;-) or just take 'only' out of there. It makes it sound like you're selling the game; what a great deal it is.
I guess I was looking for the text leading up to the pay table, similar to the rule card, but okay, again.
I played it for a while and got killed; probably not playing optimal strategy or any strategy at all, just trying to do what the rules say. I'd hate to see how killed I got after having a few brews. Adding to 21 is one thing as in BJ, but now I have to try to add to 21, 14 and 7 without going over, or pick which hand needs to be sacrificed to win or get closer to the number of another. Maybe I'm just lazy and don't want to think that much ;-)
I guess I was looking for the text leading up to the pay table, similar to the rule card, but okay, again.
I played it for a while and got killed; probably not playing optimal strategy or any strategy at all, just trying to do what the rules say. I'd hate to see how killed I got after having a few brews. Adding to 21 is one thing as in BJ, but now I have to try to add to 21, 14 and 7 without going over, or pick which hand needs to be sacrificed to win or get closer to the number of another. Maybe I'm just lazy and don't want to think that much ;-)
August 18th, 2011 at 11:20:15 AM
permalink
Looks like the simple strategy is:
1) find all the cards you could use to make a 7 hand (the goal is to qualify the 7 most times, I think)
2) Try to make 21 without busting the 7 hand
3a) Can you play 20-14, 20-13 or 20-12 without busting the 7 hand? Do it.
3b) Try to make a 14 without busting the 7 hand
4) Try to make a 20 without busting the 7 hand
5) Make the 14-hand as good as possible.
6) Then normally maximize the 21 hand, making 7 low, unless the 21 hand is reaaally bad (14-15), and you can play 6 or 7 in 7-hand.
1) find all the cards you could use to make a 7 hand (the goal is to qualify the 7 most times, I think)
2) Try to make 21 without busting the 7 hand
3a) Can you play 20-14, 20-13 or 20-12 without busting the 7 hand? Do it.
3b) Try to make a 14 without busting the 7 hand
4) Try to make a 20 without busting the 7 hand
5) Make the 14-hand as good as possible.
6) Then normally maximize the 21 hand, making 7 low, unless the 21 hand is reaaally bad (14-15), and you can play 6 or 7 in 7-hand.
Wisdom is the quality that keeps you out of situations where you would otherwise need it
August 18th, 2011 at 11:29:10 AM
permalink
I just worked the math using optimal strategy (brute force, no quantified strategy yet), and I calculate a base wager house edge of 0.540171515%. This looks dead on based on the numbers provided by the manufacturer.
I heart Crystal Math.
August 18th, 2011 at 1:03:39 PM
permalink
I agree that "only" belongs before the percentage, or deleted.
Although it should be obvious, I think you should mention that the 7 hand does not have to be a lower total than the 14 or 21 hand, and that the 14 hand doesn't need to be lower than the 21 hand. I.E. Although you can make some stupid mistakes, you can't "Foul" the hand. Strategy may dictate doing something that seems counter-intuitive.
I'm unsure how you can do math for "optimal strategy" when you can't even decide on basic strategy.
I think that once you settle on a strategy, then there won't be any exceptions for the bonus bet.
Although it should be obvious, I think you should mention that the 7 hand does not have to be a lower total than the 14 or 21 hand, and that the 14 hand doesn't need to be lower than the 21 hand. I.E. Although you can make some stupid mistakes, you can't "Foul" the hand. Strategy may dictate doing something that seems counter-intuitive.
I'm unsure how you can do math for "optimal strategy" when you can't even decide on basic strategy.
The only case where this applies would possibly be "going for" two wins (and a loss) rather than two pushes and one win. The net on the basic bet is the same.Quote: Analysis - Bonus Bet sectionUnlike most table games, in 7-14-21 the player's actions determine the outcome of the Bonus side bet. In some borderline cases, this will cause the player to deviate from the optimal strategy for the base game. The greater the ratio of the Bonus Bet to the 7, 14, and 21 bets, the more the player will try to win the Bonus Bet, at the expense of the other three.
I think that once you settle on a strategy, then there won't be any exceptions for the bonus bet.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
August 18th, 2011 at 1:36:17 PM
permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBear
I'm unsure how you can do math for "optimal strategy" when you can't even decide on basic strategy.
I let a progam decide the best way to sort the cards by running through each and every way to deal cards to the dealer. I have an excel file now which lists every possible dealt hand and how the hand should be sorted. So, I have a perfect strategy, but you just need to remember 4,915 different hands. The difficulty is putting into words how a player could make these decisions without my list.
I heart Crystal Math.
August 18th, 2011 at 1:45:40 PM
permalink
Any guess on what the HE might become with the average Joe playing the game?
August 18th, 2011 at 3:26:01 PM
permalink
Someone could try simulating the various strategies that have shown up already:
1) copy the dealer
2) Wizard's from a couple pages back
3) mine from ^ there
and see what edges they play at.
1) copy the dealer
2) Wizard's from a couple pages back
3) mine from ^ there
and see what edges they play at.
Wisdom is the quality that keeps you out of situations where you would otherwise need it
August 19th, 2011 at 9:30:35 PM
permalink
Quote: CrystalMathThe difficulty is putting into words how a player could make these decisions without my list.
CrystalMath was kind enough to send me a spreadsheet of all 4,915 hands. Here is a hand that has caused me to rethink my basic strategy:
AA68TT
The strategy of making the 7 hand as good as possible would for setting this A6,A8,TT. However, the better play is AA,68,TT.
I think it is worth optimizing the 14 or 21 at the expense of the 7 if it bring the 14 or 21 to the highest value. Much like in pai gow (tiles) you strive to get the high hand to at least a high 9. If you can't, then you tend to follow a more balanced strategy most of the time.
One thing I can say is that if you should never bust more hands than you have to. There are ZERO exceptions to this rule.
All things considered, here is my latest strategy to run up the flagpole. The higher the rule, the higher the priority.
1. Never bust more hands than you have to.
2. Make 21 in the 21 hand, if you can.
3. Make 14 in the 14 hand, if you can.
4. Maximize the 7.
5. Maximize the 14.
Regarding another post, with 4,915 different hands it is not easy to test these strategies.
Miplet, CM, SH79 -- How is the strategy progress coming along?
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
August 19th, 2011 at 11:14:01 PM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitI wonder if you are taking into account the house way. The dealer has to start with making the best high hand, making his lower hands vulnerable. So it would be better to wreck the 21 if you are left with 7 and 14 . And playing 6 plus ace for the 7, even if this is leaving no ace for a 21.
As far as I can tell the Wizard is on the money with his strategy above.
edit: With the Wiz strategy, it seems if you are left with 2 hands that are lame, but not busted, it pays to strengthen one even to the point of busting the other.
I'm not even sure how common that situation is. From playing that online version for an hour or so, I will say it is fairly rare to even be able to place all 3 hands. So I figure the odds of placing a low hand, and then even having the choice for a high 21 and still making a mid is very low.
The strategy card says to maximize your low hand before considering the mid or high. Just making a low hand is huge, maximizing doesn't seem to add much. A 4 low and 14 mid is far better than 7 low and 12 mid.
August 19th, 2011 at 11:18:06 PM
permalink
Quote: Wizard
One thing I can say is that if you should never bust more hands than you have to. There are ZERO exceptions to this rule.
Consider this hand: AA779T
You could avoid busting with AA 77 9T, but the best strategy is 9A 77 TA, which is a bust on the 7 hand.
Quote: Wizard
Miplet, CM, SH79 -- How is the strategy progress coming along?
Not so well
I heart Crystal Math.
August 19th, 2011 at 11:40:23 PM
permalink
Quote: Wizard
1. Never bust more hands than you have to.
2. Make 21 in the 21 hand, if you can.
3. Make 14 in the 14 hand, if you can.
4. Maximize the 7.
5. Maximize the 14.
I would switch 5 and 4 around. Still going off my math, but almost every improvement on the mid hand seemed better than going from 2 to 7 in the low hand.
My numbers would also add a step before #4.
3b) Make a 20 in the 21 hand if you can with a mid hand greater than 7.
mid 10 + high 20 seems better than mid 12 + high 18. An example would be A228TT Which I think should be played A2 28 TT rather than A2 2T 8T.
I needed to add the last part in for this hand 2222TT - 22 22 TT I think is worse than 22 2T 2T. I think this situation can only happen with zero aces, 2 very high cards(9+) and 4 very low cards(2 or 3).
